[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #601: extension lifecycle

[Simon Peyton Jones]

The proposal does call out some extensions as experimental, but does not
list LT although to me it’s one of the most prominent examples

It specifically says that any extensions mentioned are examples only.
A separate
proposal <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/discussions/635>is
for deciding which extension is in which category.

So this proposal does not, in itself, do any categorisation whatsoever.

Simon

On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 13:36, Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am in support of this proposal. I do not believe that beating this any
> further will result in any meaningful improvement. As I’ve learned in other
> discussions the word Experimental means different things to different
> people. The proposal does call out some extensions as experimental, but
> does not list LT although to me it’s one of the most prominent examples.
>
> In any case having some guiding flow around extensions is a step in the
> right direction in my opinion.
>
> Best,
>   Moritz
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 8:04 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
>
>> I support this proposal.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam at well-typed.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm in favour. (And I'm willing to work on the necessary follow-up
>> proposal to apply the categorisation to specific extensions.)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 16/05/2024 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>> >> Dear GHC Steering Committee
>> >> Trevis Elser has submitted GHC Proposal #601 <
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601>to us for
>> consideration.  (It was originally drafted by David Christiansen, but
>> Trevis took it over.)
>> >> It proposes that that we classify extensions into four categories:
>> >>  * Stable
>> >>  * Experimental
>> >>  * Deprecated
>> >>  * Legacy
>> >> It does not say which extensions are in which category (that's #635,
>> still to come); it simply establishes the categories.
>> >> *I strongly urge you to accept the proposal*. We have been using this
>> language informally for years, and it's good to nail it down more precisely.
>> >> There is plenty of discussion on the PR, but it's all about the
>> specifics (e.g. do we want both Deprecated and Legacy; answer, yes).  There
>> seems to be a strong consensus around the principle.
>> >> I don't expect this to be controversial. Please (everyone) can you
>> respond within a week, by *end of day on Thursday 23 May. *Can you
>> >>  * Reply by email
>> >>  * Update the spreadsheet
>> >>    <
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e6GdwHmAjeDEUhTvP-b18MDkpTfH3SMHhFu5F3nDIWc/edit?usp=sharing>with
>> your vote
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Simon
>> >
>> > --
>> > Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
>> > Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/
>> >
>> > Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
>> > 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> >
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20240516/1fb33e47/attachment-0001.html>